I recently got Dances with Wolves as a gift, which I've never seen before (but only heard in comparison with Avatar). It contains both the theatrical version and the extended cut. What version do you guys recommend for first-time watch?

Theatrical. It's a long movie (and a very good one) already and it's not like reading the abridged version of The Stand where you're like "Huh, where did that character come from?" Go with the one that everyone loved when it came out.

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Wed May 01, 2013 5:25 pm

Blonde Almond

Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pmPosts: 505Location: The Desert

Re: Last Movie You Watched

From Up On Poppy Hill - 2013 and 2014 are looking to be standout years for fans of the renowned Studio Ghibli. Already this year, the studio has collaborated on the critically-acclaimed video game Ni No Kuni, and a little further on down the road there will be new releases from both Hayao Miyazaki and Grave Of The Fireflies director Isao Takahata (his first feature film in over a decade). Not to be lost in the shuffle is this second film from Goro Miyazaki, son of Hayao, whose first effort was Tales From Earthsea, one of the very few Ghibli duds. His work with this film is an improvement in just about every way, and it is well worth making the effort to track down. Ranging closer to the tone of Whisper Of The Heart than Spirited Away, the film follows Umi, a young high school student still in mourning from the death of her father in the Korean War. Her life becomes more complicated when she meets Shun, who, along with his other male students, is working to save a dilapidated school clubhouse called the Latin Quarter. Together they develop a plan to save the building, while also falling for each other in the process, at least until the past threatens to break them apart.

With its teen romance and general melancholic tone, the film is geared to a slightly older audience than many of the other films In the Ghibli canon. The narrative feels more personal, and nostalgic for a former time (the film is set in the 1960s, around the time Japan was preparing for the Tokyo Olympics). The film succeeds the best at creating a sense of time and place, of focusing in on that period when a young adult is just starting to figure out who they are, while also looking back into the past to find inspiration. The Latin Quarter clubhouse is one of the more memorable and visually striking settings you're likely to see in film all this year, and the central seaside location is very reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu's Floating Weeds. And unlike Whisper Of The Heart, which featured a brief fantasy interlude, the action in this film is kept firmly in reality, apart from a quietly spine-tingling dream sequence where Umi is visited by her father. That sequence, along with many others, is aided tremendously by the animation, which is predictably great while never calling attention to itself. In short, it's a wonderful film that deserves a more widespread audience and distribution, an animation with real soul and passion, a far cry from the cookie-cutter fare that comes and goes with so little consequence. 9/10.

Richard III (1955) - On the newest Criterion release of this 1955 Shakespeare adaptation is an informative special feature where Martin Scorcese talks about the painstaking restoration of the film's image, as well as his own memories of watching the film for the first time. He talks about how, for his generation, Shakespeare on film was synonymous with Laurence Olivier. It's a little bit different for someone like me, who grew up in the '90s when Shakespeare on film was synonymous with Kenneth Branagh. For me, going into an Olivier film adaptation for the first time after seeing Branagh's films ends up being a somewhat problematic experience. Since we're talking Shakespeare here, it's not the content of the film I have problems with, but with how Olivier presents the content as a film. And after being previously bowled over by Branagh's incredibly cinematic Shakespeare adaptations (as well as Richard Loncraine's 1995 version of Richard III, with its WWII imagery and Ian McKellen's towering central performance), Olivier's methods don't hold up particularly well, coming across as dated and overly stagey.

Which is not to say there isn't any interest in watching great English actors like Olivier, Ralph Richardson, and John Gielgud, among others, performing Shakespeare, because there is. But too often the limitations of the filmmaking get in the way. The opening monologue is a good example. It's a fine, theatrical piece of acting from Olivier, but you can almost see it in his eyes as he directs the cameramen to move along with him as he stalks around the set. The rest of the film is similarly awkward; apart from a precious few flourishes, there's not much happening on a visual level here. The film feels more like a documentation of a stage play, with sparely-decorated sets and gaudy costumes, than something that has been tailored for the cinematic medium. Only in the final half hour does the film step outside for a breath of fresh air, but even then Olivier chooses to mix location footage with obvious studio shots. To be fair to the film, I didn't watch Criterion's most recent release, but their earlier version, where the image quality is incredibly inconsistent. But even if I had seen the film with pristine image quality, I doubt I would be more forgiving. Shakespeare's play is timeless, but this film is very much of its time. 5/10.

_________________"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."Letterboxd Profile

Thu May 02, 2013 2:41 am

Balaji Sivaraman

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:22 amPosts: 372Location: Chennai, India

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Iron Man 3 (2013)

I wanted to write a decently long write-up on why I enjoyed this one, but Matt Zoller Seitz went to the trouble of taking the words out of my mouth. I agree with every word of that review.

I don't remember a lot about Iron Man 3 right now; about a week has passed since I saw it. I do remember some of the great quips traded between Cheadle and Downey. I remember enjoying the sight of Gwyneth Paltrow exposing her midriffs. There were some awesome scenes including a daring mid-air rescue of 12 people in freefall, which is easily the film's highlight sequence. Ben Kingsley was epic. Rebecca Hall was the only actor who played it straight with a lot of seriousness. The ending sets it up nicely for the next sequence of Marvel films. The post-credits sequence was fun.

But yeah, not a lot to take away from this films. But the in-theater experience was such a blast, especially with an audience that knows how to have fun. We were cheering and whistling for every breathtaking moment in the film, and all of that adds up when you are sitting in a theater. I would've enjoyed Iron Man 3 a lot less if I had seen it within the private confines of my home.

_________________Balajithots - Last Updated 21-Jan - Frozen (2013)This list... is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.

Thu May 02, 2013 3:56 am

Syd Henderson

Director

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 amPosts: 1805

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Blonde Almond: Another problem with Richard III is that outside of the charismatic villain, the play itself isn't really one of Shakespeare's best. (It's apparently one of Shakespeare's earliest, succeeding the Henry VI trilogy, The Comedy of Errors and Titus Andronicus.) I've seen Olivier's Hamlet, which is wonderfully atmospheric but also a misinterpretation, and Henry V, which is a genuine classic that uses the stage to great effect. Although Branagh's Henry V is equal to it.

_________________Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles

Thu May 02, 2013 3:55 pm

Syd Henderson

Director

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 amPosts: 1805

Re: Last Movie You Watched

With Byrd at the South Pole is the film documenting Richard Byrd's first expedition to Antarctica (1928-30) and the first flight by anyone over the South Pole. On this expedition, 42 people and an unnumbered number of sled dogs (and Byrd's pet dog Igloo) spent at least 18 months in the Antarctic. All the humans survived, apparently all in good health

One poignant story is that of Sky, a former lead dog who is now old and lame. When the expedition to lay the emergency cairns goes out (leaving emergency supplies and fuel in case the Floyd Bennett couldn't make it there and back in one flight), Sky tries to accompany them and is sent back. When the expedition is too far out to return, an escaped Sky rejoins them, but eventually can't keep up, and to keep him from starving or freezing, he's put to sleep.

On the other hand, at least five puppies are born during the expedition, so they may have come back with more dogs than they started with.

There's a lot of remarkable footage here, including whales surfacing in a lead three hundred yards from Little America, apparently in curiosity more than coming up for air. There's a reason that bay is called the Bay of Whales.

The film is silent except for an introduction by Byrd read from cue cards (He makes Calvin Coolidge look like a master elocutionist.), and the flight itself and it's aftermath is narrated. Byrd's earlier North Pole attempt is disputed, so he made sure this one was well-documented. It looks to me like there are enough landmarks to establish his position. I should mention Byrd was the expedition leader and was navigator on the flight. Bernt Balchen was the pilot, copilot was Harold June, and Ashley McKinley the photographer.

The expedition had three radio towers, and got messages during their isolation, including one member getting updates on the progress of his infant son.

If you've ever seen Endurance or Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure, this makes a fitting companion piece. This film got the third Oscar for Cinematography because what else are you going to do? If there had been a documentary award back then, it would have won that too. (***1/2 of ***** as a film, ***** of ***** as an amazing historical document.)

_________________Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles

Thu May 02, 2013 11:56 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Sleepwalk with Me (2012) 2.5/4

Comedic elements quickly get torn to shreds here. At the beginning, this film looks at the life of a comedian who isn’t funny, and revels in a good amount of laughable content. However, this bit of the film quickly fizzles out and becomes nothing but an ode to formula. Sleepwalk with Me basically says “You can’t be funny or have a funny film without the problems of a relationship as your central arc” and I, for one, cannot stand for that kind of statement.

Mud (2012) 3/4

I found Mud a complete joy to watch. Not only is this film a solid coming of age story, but it’s also a unique examination on the perception of love. I honestly can’t list out a series of complaints. My only issue stemmed from a semi-lucrative third act that sort of goes against the established tone of the film. In hindsight I may have cut this film short by half a star—I’d suggest seeking this one out and correcting me if I did.

Just Like Being There (2012) 3/4

An interesting look into the world of “gig posters”, and their growing popularity. Just Like Being There takes the viewer back to the spark of the poster revolution, and introduces the audience to a group of artists who essentially started the movement. Ultimately there’s no deep meaning here, just a pleasurable look at the progression of a art form.

I Saw The Devil (2010) 3.5/4

This film is a fucking experience. It takes the revenge sub-genre to a whole new level, while giving the viewer more action and gore than one can possibly imagine. The characters in I Saw The Devil are pretty clear-cut, and there is little to invest in when it comes to them in particular. However this saga of one man’s revenge puts characterization on the backburner, and buckles the viewer in for one hell of a ride. Even with its action-induced center, I Saw The Devil manages to pull off an extremely interesting look at the nature of evil and the age-old quote of “Evil begets evil.”

This movie is at or near the top of just about every Top 100 list you’ll ever find, and I had tried to view it about a year ago and renewed it twice (library) but couldn’t get past the first 20 minutes of WTF. The movie revolves around a director trying to make a movie and experiencing a creative block. We see inside his mind as he meets, is served by or beds many beautiful women –and one sorta homely one, but are unsure if what we are viewing is reality, dream or memory. When some women of whom he appears to have intimate knowledge appear to read for a role in the movie, it further blurs these lines. I found this film very challenging and am not sure I enjoyed it enough to see again.

Part of what I noticed was that I have a harder time “feeling” characters when my viewing is filtered through subtitles. It is as though there is a barrier that causes me to lose more than just language. Interestingly, I watched Fritz Lang’s M last week and was immersed… Maybe it’s the Italian thing. Their food gives me gas, so I’m blaming that. Regardless, there is a lot to unravel here and the B/W of 8 1/2 was probably the most beautiful I’ve ever seen. The visuals were the star, as well they should be. It was a great film to watch, but confounding enough that I’m glad I didn’t have the wife watch it with me. I’d be watching Hallmark movies for a month.

_______________________________________________My milkshake bringeth all thee gentlefolk to mine yard. Verily, 'tis better than thine. I would instruct thee, but I must levy a fee.

Fri May 03, 2013 12:43 pm

Balaji Sivaraman

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:22 amPosts: 372Location: Chennai, India

Re: Last Movie You Watched

JackBurns wrote:

Mud (2012) 3/4

I found Mud a complete joy to watch. Not only is this film a solid coming of age story, but it’s also a unique examination on the perception of love. I honestly can’t list out a series of complaints. My only issue stemmed from a semi-lucrative third act that sort of goes against the established tone of the film. In hindsight I may have cut this film short by half a star—I’d suggest seeking this one out and correcting me if I did.

I agree with you on both counts. I badly wanted this to be a 3.5 starrer, but it doesn't rise above being "very good." I still feel it is one of the best films of the year so far and worth a watch, but I will be very surprised if this cracks my year end list. It was brilliantly acted though. McConaughey has definitely found himself in the past couple of years. I've enjoyed his performances in Lincoln Lawyer, Killer Joe and this one. Tye Sheridan was very good throughout and especially terrific in the key scene towards the end. The rest of the senior cast were nicely cast.

With regards the last act, don't you think Nichols sort of wrote himself into a corner.

He introduced extra characters like the mob chasing Mud into the film, whereas in other films they might've been just spoken about without being seen on-screen. If it was the latter case, he could've gone for an open-ended ending which might've been great.

As it stands, he "had" to close everything out cleanly. And even though you cannot blame him for it, something about that third act just doesn't feel right. Still a solid film as you rightly said.

_________________Balajithots - Last Updated 21-Jan - Frozen (2013)This list... is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.

Fri May 03, 2013 1:30 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Balaji Sivaraman wrote:

McConaughey has definitely found himself in the past couple of years. I've enjoyed his performances in Lincoln Lawyer, Killer Joe and this one. Tye Sheridan was very good throughout and especially terrific in the key scene towards the end. The rest of the senior cast were nicely cast.

With regards the last act, don't you think Nichols sort of wrote himself into a corner.

He introduced extra characters like the mob chasing Mud into the film, whereas in other films they might've been just spoken about without being seen on-screen. If it was the latter case, he could've gone for an open-ended ending which might've been great.

As it stands, he "had" to close everything out cleanly. And even though you cannot blame him for it, something about that third act just doesn't feel right. Still a solid film as you rightly said.

Agreed. The acting is very good. Although I found Witherspoon to be slightly dull, yet she wasn't given an abundance of material so I cant grieve or grunt too much about that. Also glad to know I'm not the only one who found the third act really problematic.

I can totally buy your notion that Nichols wrote himself into a corner so to speak. Mud works best in the first two acts because there is a sort of mysterious, fabled feel to where all of this is headed. That feel and tone is kind of destroyed by the "balls to the wall shootout" at the end (that doesn't feel needed), and we really don't need to see Mud, on the boat alive, at the end--it kinda made me shake my head. Leaving it open would have been much more appropriate in my opinion, and would have further grounded the shroud of mystery in the character Mud.

I can totally buy your notion that Nichols wrote himself into a corner so to speak. Mud works best in the first two acts because there is a sort of mysterious, fabled feel to where all of this is headed. That feel and tone is kind of destroyed by the "balls to the wall shootout" at the end (that doesn't feel needed), and we really don't need to see Mud, on the boat alive, at the end--it kinda made me shake my head. Leaving it open would have been much more appropriate in my opinion, and would have further grounded the shroud of mystery in the character Mud.

That is what I meant when I said the film would've been served better by never introducing these so-called hunters to begin with. Nichols would've been able to maintain the fabled feel you rightly pointed till the end that way. When he showed the mob lining up outside the door, I began fearing the worst and although it wasn't as bad as I imagined, it wasn't very good either.

With regards to the final scene, most people had similar problems with Take Shelter as well. Nichols seems to have the tendency to close things out rather cleanly by letting us know the fates of every individual when that is not really needed.

The final scene in that film depicts that the apocalypse Michael Shannon's character dreamt of has arrived. However, there are a lot of allegorical implications for ending the film that way. This was discussed in Reelviews a while ago by NotHughGrant where he pointed out that it could be seen as the family beginning to share Shannon's paranoia. There are a number of other conclusions we can draw from that ending as well.

In contrast, no such excuses can be made for the final scene in Mud. While it was liberating in its own way, it was totally unnecessary and certainly lessened the impact of the brilliant build-up in the first two acts.

_________________Balajithots - Last Updated 21-Jan - Frozen (2013)This list... is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.

Fri May 03, 2013 2:17 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Balaji Sivaraman wrote:

With regards to the final scene, most people had similar problems with Take Shelter as well. Nichols seems to have the tendency to close things out rather cleanly by letting us know the fates of every individual when that is not really needed.

The final scene in that film depicts that the apocalypse Michael Shannon's character dreamt of has arrived. However, there are a lot of allegorical implications for ending the film that way. This was discussed in Reelviews a while ago by NotHughGrant where he pointed out that it could be seen as the family beginning to share Shannon's paranoia. There are a number of other conclusions we can draw from that ending as well.

In contrast, no such excuses can be made for the final scene in Mud. While it was liberating in its own way, it was totally unnecessary and certainly lessened the impact of the brilliant build-up in the first two acts.

Take Shelter definitely seems to be an extremely polarizing film around the forum, with a lot of heated debate that constantly follows it. I on the other hand love every beat of the film, but can completely see the issues that people have with it. However when comparing Take Shelter and Mud, I see the former being a delve into the head and life of a man who is possibly mentally ill that doesn't follow a normal act structure, while the latter is a coming of age story that closely follows the regular three act structure.Mud is a tad more accessible, and how should I put it---hollywoodized? than Take Shelter. Like you said, I can understand Mud's clean ending because its kinda going after a true three act work, yet it still feels completely wrong.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Fri May 03, 2013 2:49 pm

Blonde Almond

Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pmPosts: 505Location: The Desert

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Syd Henderson wrote:

Blonde Almond: Another problem with Richard III is that outside of the charismatic villain, the play itself isn't really one of Shakespeare's best. (It's apparently one of Shakespeare's earliest, succeeding the Henry VI trilogy, The Comedy of Errors and Titus Andronicus.) I've seen Olivier's Hamlet, which is wonderfully atmospheric but also a misinterpretation, and Henry V, which is a genuine classic that uses the stage to great effect. Although Branagh's Henry V is equal to it.

I agree that it's not up there with Shakespeare's very best, although it still has a lot of value. I think Olivier struggled with bringing it to the screen in a satisfying way, but I'll still definitely check out his other adaptations.

The last two first-time viewings from April:

Little Big Man - During a brief stretch in the late 1960s, Arthur Penn made a handful of films about American history and the appeal of storytelling in embellishing on history and elevating past events to almost myth-like status. His most famous and highly-regarded film Bonnie & Clyde offers an inside look into the famous media-seeking outlaws. Alice’s Restaurant expands on the rambling insights of Arlo Guthrie’s classic Thanksgiving/Vietnam era song. And this film from 1970 follows the adventures of Dustin Hoffman’s Jack Crabb as he moves through life in the mid-1800s American West Forrest Gump-style, bouncing around and experiencing a little bit of everything during the time period. Most of his adventures revolve around the tensions between the Native Americans and the white men who are their enemies, and he frequently finds himself on both sides over the course of the film. In between those episodes he also has a religious phase, a gunfighter phase, and a snake-oil salesmen phase, among others, and part of the appeal of the film is getting to know the characters he meets (including small but memorable roles for Faye Dunaway and Martin Balsam), and then seeing how they change as he runs into them again later in life. I like the idea that as we follow the life-long adventures of one person, there may be equally interesting stories happening in the lives of the other people he meets along the way.

For whatever reason, I wasn’t expecting the film to have a lighter side, and it took me a little while before I realized that the film in some parts is meant to be broadly comic. But it also has a serious side, and as Penn proved in the final moments of Bonnie & Clyde, he knows how to handle violence in a way that gives it real visceral impact. It’s a tough balance to get right, and Penn mostly succeeds, with a couple exceptions. There is a flamboyantly gay Native American character that I’m not sure you could get away with if the film were made today, and General George Custer is portrayed as too much of a buffoon to ever take seriously (one of the better subtle running jokes is that he seems to have a new second-in-command every time he comes onscreen). The film does ends on an elegiac note though, with a simple, quiet final shot mourning the memory of a culture broken apart by Western Expansionism. It’s this last note that gives the film true resonance. 8/10.

Mud - Over the course of three films now, Jeff Nichols has been making a case for being one of the most promising new talents in American cinema. His first film, Shotgun Stories, explored the violent tensions between two Southern families. His next film, Take Shelter, focused on a husband/father who attempts to hide the signs of his mental illness from his family. His new film is Mud, a hybrid of coming-of-age story and Mark Twain-inspired adventure. The film follows two teenagers, Ellis and Neckbone, living in rural Arkansas, who find on a deserted island a boat stuck high above in the trees. The boat is inhabited by Mud, a mysterious drifter who beguiles the boys with stories and his plans to escape with his true love, played by Matthew McConaughey in what may be his best performance to date. The boys, still young enough to be swept up in Mud’s storybook-romantic ideas, offer to help him, and end up getting caught in the middle between Mud and the people looking for him.

Nichols has a nearly-perfect command of tone and atmosphere here, but there is more to the film than just expressive cinematography and backwoods adventure. All of the main male characters in the film are defined by the relationships with the women in their lives, and one of the big themes throughout the film is of men struggling to come to terms with rejection, especially at the point when they discover that the love that was once present in a relationship is no longer there. Mud, despite initially appearing as an enigmatic and potentially-dangerous figure, is revealed to be a hopeless romantic, still clinging to an idea of love that may never have been there in the first place. Ellis’ father refuses early on to accept his wife’s desire to separate from him, but eventually he comes to accept the inevitable change. And Tye Sheridan’s Ellis, really the main character of the film, has his first heartbreaking experience with love and rejection. He comes away wiser by at the end of the film, more understanding of the reality of relationships, instead of clinging on to the fantasy of them. That Nichols manages to balance this material with the more-familiar aspects of the narrative is a real achievement (Only the final climactic confrontation comes across as a little forced, a display of violence that comes across as a little too over-the-top and unlikely). He’s three-for-three now, and I’ll be eagerly anticipating whatever he does next. 9/10.

_________________"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."Letterboxd Profile

Fri May 03, 2013 3:30 pm

Thief12

Assistant Director

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pmPosts: 882Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Awf Hand wrote:

I dug in deep and watched 8 1/2.

This movie is at or near the top of just about every Top 100 list you’ll ever find, and I had tried to view it about a year ago and renewed it twice (library) but couldn’t get past the first 20 minutes of WTF. The movie revolves around a director trying to make a movie and experiencing a creative block. We see inside his mind as he meets, is served by or beds many beautiful women –and one sorta homely one, but are unsure if what we are viewing is reality, dream or memory. When some women of whom he appears to have intimate knowledge appear to read for a role in the movie, it further blurs these lines. I found this film very challenging and am not sure I enjoyed it enough to see again.

Part of what I noticed was that I have a harder time “feeling” characters when my viewing is filtered through subtitles. It is as though there is a barrier that causes me to lose more than just language. Interestingly, I watched Fritz Lang’s M last week and was immersed… Maybe it’s the Italian thing. Their food gives me gas, so I’m blaming that. Regardless, there is a lot to unravel here and the B/W of 8 1/2 was probably the most beautiful I’ve ever seen. The visuals were the star, as well they should be. It was a great film to watch, but confounding enough that I’m glad I didn’t have the wife watch it with me. I’d be watching Hallmark movies for a month.

I saw this for the first time about a year or two ago and I did find the film puzzling, but interesting to watch as well. From what I've read, is a film very personal to Fellini so I suppose it had some profound meaning to his life. It's the kind of film that's probably not made to be fully "understood", kinda like Mulholland Drive or Holy Motors.

A stellar documentary, concerning the murder of a Texas policeman. Randall Adams was convicted of the murder, even though a man named David Harris was actually the killer. Filmed while Adams was still on death row, The Thin Blue Line takes the definite position that Adams was innocent, and sets out to prove it. The film was a success on that front; shortly after its release Adams was released from prison and his record cleared.

Watching The Thin Blue Line today, it is easy to forget how revolutionary it was; its use of re-enactments from different perspectives is a technique used in every single true crime TV show today. But Errol Morris was there first. His film may not seem as earth-shattering as it once was, but it is still a sobering meditation on the serious imperfections in our justice system.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

Fri May 03, 2013 9:11 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6010Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Awf Hand wrote:

I dug in deep and watched 8 1/2.

This movie is at or near the top of just about every Top 100 list you’ll ever find, and I had tried to view it about a year ago and renewed it twice (library) but couldn’t get past the first 20 minutes of WTF. The movie revolves around a director trying to make a movie and experiencing a creative block. We see inside his mind as he meets, is served by or beds many beautiful women –and one sorta homely one, but are unsure if what we are viewing is reality, dream or memory. When some women of whom he appears to have intimate knowledge appear to read for a role in the movie, it further blurs these lines. I found this film very challenging and am not sure I enjoyed it enough to see again.

Part of what I noticed was that I have a harder time “feeling” characters when my viewing is filtered through subtitles. It is as though there is a barrier that causes me to lose more than just language. Interestingly, I watched Fritz Lang’s M last week and was immersed… Maybe it’s the Italian thing. Their food gives me gas, so I’m blaming that. Regardless, there is a lot to unravel here and the B/W of 8 1/2 was probably the most beautiful I’ve ever seen. The visuals were the star, as well they should be. It was a great film to watch, but confounding enough that I’m glad I didn’t have the wife watch it with me. I’d be watching Hallmark movies for a month.

Along with Solaris, one of the hardest movies i've ever had to get through

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Sat May 04, 2013 9:10 am

A.J. Hakari

Re: Last Movie You Watched

The Parallax View - 6/10

Y'know, I wasn't terribly impressed by this one. I'd heard of this as an unsung '70s classic, and while it was a good, decently-made thriller, nothing struck me as overtly ambitious or special about it. Dark? Yeah. Suspenseful? More often than not; the lack of music during the most harrowing scenes was a nice touch. But Warren Beatty's character wasn't the most magnetic dude, and the story's direction was pretty obvious from the get-go. An alright movie, nothing more.

Go West (1940) - 7/10

This Marx Brothers flick came on a double-feature disc with 1941's The Big Store, which I caught Thursday night and bored the living tar out of me. Thankfully, Go West is more of a Marx vehicle than some dull romance in which the boys are supporting players. This one's the best of both worlds, in which the guys wreak anarchic havoc, but only against the boo-hiss baddies who deserve it. Lots of fun to be had, especially in a finale that puts Groucho, Chico, and Harpo in charge of a runaway train. Darn funny stuff.

Sat May 04, 2013 9:53 am

nitrium

Director

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pmPosts: 1470Location: New Zealand

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Upstream Colorhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084989/Written, Starring, Produced, and Directed by Shane Curruth, whose last film was Primer 8 years ago. Like Primer, this is also a mind bender, almost Lynchian, and I have to admit I don't really "get it". I suspect the dialogue would fit on less than 1 page, the story being primarily told visually, with some quite powerful images. The story superficially revolves around mind-control and the after effects of it, but it's a hell of a lot weirder than that makes it sound. The only thing that annoyed me was the rapidity of scene changes - no individual scene would last more than 20 or 30 seconds, or so it seemed. Definitely not for everyone.7/10.

Sat May 04, 2013 3:25 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Bubble (2005) 3/4

Soderbergh crafts a subtle film using nonprofessional actors to ground a narrative in pure realism. I loved the noir-ish feel that this film encapsulated through setting and cinematography. The emotions of the characters are clearly presented; yet never have to be spelled out. My only complaint comes from the film’s tone, which felt very awkward at times. I would say this tone was intentional, but it didn’t seem constant and ended up just bothering me. Regardless this film comes recommended.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010)

I haven’t rated this film yet, probably because I’m outright baffled at its content. I can say, however, that I was not a fan of this film. Perhaps I’m too attached to Western culture to see its value. I know the aspects of the religion that it addresses, but in all honesty I don’t see how it could have helped in my overall understanding. Boonmee moves at a snails pace, and I was perfectly fine with that. Nuri Ceylan's Once Upon A Time in Anatolia was a deliberately slow paced film as well, but having patience with this particular work ultimately paid off in an extremely rewarding fashion. In this regard I can’t say that I felt rewarded by the end of this film. The film handles all of its revelations in a very subdued manner.

Ghosts and other entities appear, and to the characters it’s no big deal—this is just a part of their belief system, their culture so to speak. Yet the film doesn’t seem real in this regard. However, the tone presented is always steady and one can’t deny an overwhelming sense of mysticism ingrained throughout the entirety of the film. Boonmee, never connected with me though, neither on an emotional level or a relatable one for that matter. I wanted to become invested in these characters, but there’s nothing to latch on to. I wanted to be engaged in some of the more fantasy-induced segments, but I couldn’t. Ultimately Boonmee gives viewers plenty of interesting elements, but never tells you what they’re for or what you’re supposed to do with them—kind of like giving a kid with no imagination a LEGO set and telling them to have at it.

Iron Man 3 (2013) 2/4

Black doesn’t know what to do here. I was onboard with this mess of mediocrity, until Black goes and destroys a defining element of the Iron Man Universe. This event shows that Black didn’t know how to handle this kind of material. He didn’t know how to create a villain, or story for that matter, of stature or remembrance. He instead focuses on soaking the narrative full of smirk worthy humor, while trying to explore or suggest that Tony Stark is going through a dark time in his life since the aftermath of the Avengers. Yet, nothing meaningful is ever done with Stark’s mental break down so to speak. Yes, action sequences are well done and there are a few instances of goodness. However, Iron Man 3 ultimately feels like a regurgitation of its predecessor: poorly developed villains, a rocky supporting cast, and filler ridden second act, which sadly makes this film an outright disappointment.

The element I was referring to was the Mandarin. Iron Man’s archnemesis who Black decreases to a joke.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Sat May 04, 2013 4:09 pm

Sean

Re: Last Movie You Watched

JackBurns wrote:

Iron Man 3 (2013) 2/4

Black doesn’t know what to do here. I was onboard with this mess of mediocrity, until Black goes and destroys a defining element of the Iron Man Universe. This event shows that Black didn’t know how to handle this kind of material. He didn’t know how to create a villain, or story for that matter, of stature or remembrance. He instead focuses on soaking the narrative full of smirk worthy humor, while trying to explore or suggest that Tony Stark is going through a dark time in his life since the aftermath of the Avengers. Yet, nothing meaningful is ever done with Stark’s mental break down so to speak. Yes, action sequences are well done and there are a few instances of goodness. However, Iron Man 3 ultimately feels like a regurgitation of its predecessor: poorly developed villains, a rocky supporting cast, and filler ridden second act, which sadly makes this film an outright disappointment.

The element I was referring to was the Mandarin. Iron Man’s archnemesis who Black decreases to a joke.

I would go as low as *1/2. The whole endeavor also reminded me of Iron Man 2 (also *1/2). It felt just as bloated, overstuffed, and nonsensical, with none of the charm or intelligence that made the first installment such a joy to watch. It will take a miracle to save the franchise at this point.

Just out of curiosity, why did you find the film mediocre prior to the twist? I was truly immersed in it up until that point.

Completely unnecessary. I understand that Black wanted to bypass a traditional story arc, where Stark is at his lowest low and must work himself back up in order to defeat the Mandarin, but making the film a comedy just made everything seem like a joke. Also frustrating was the final showdown at the dockyards. Tons of stuff going boom, but with none of the heart that made me fall in love with The Avengers. What were Killian's motivations anyway? Why did he want to kill the President in the first place?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum